If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

In this One-on-Onerexlunae and I (AMR) will be discussing the topic of objective morality, and outgrowth of discussions that took place here, and in particular here.

The stated rules rexlunae and I have agreed to follow are as follows:

1. Each of us will post one opening salvo.
2. These will be followed by four rounds.
3. Afterwards there each of us will make our final posts, making a total of six individual posts per participant.
4. Post lengths are limited to the maximum supported by TOL's vBulletin software limits set by the site admin.
5. I have agreed to make the first opening post.
6. rexlunae will make the last post in the discussion.
7. The One-on-One has a limit of three weeks to conclude, although I suspect we will finish well before the limit.

The objective of the One-on-One is as follows:

Given that once a person believes that there is such a thing as objective reality and that there are such things objective truths, then that person has posited a metaphysical claim--namely that the correspondence theory of truth is an adequate test for truth.

Thus the question becomes, which worldview can adequately appropriate and support such a belief? It is a matter of who has the best explanation, not who can prove it objectively.

Given the above, I will be arguing a conservative Reformed Christian view, that is, objective morality exists because we have an Objective Truth-Maker, God, as He is revealed in Scripture.

rexlunae will be arguing from a non-theist perspective.

I will be making the initial opening post to begin this One-on-One in the coming days that will lay out my entire position. I do so avoid the usual tactics that accompany many discussions or debates, wherein something akin to playing "twenty questions" is poorly attempted in hopes of ensnaring another in hidden agendas or demonstrating cleverness in hopes of appealing to the crowd. I hope this affords all concerned the opportunity to see exactly what my position is and where I will be going in the discussion. My subsequent posts will key off of my opening positions as well as including relevant responses to rexlunae's opening posts.

Lastly, rexlunae and I want to thank Knight for graciously providing a venue for this important discussion in the hope all will be edified.